[Closed] Fracking bid rejected in Lancashire

Expect a rushed bill to steamroller it through.

it was very much considered a test case

Was it not only rejected on traffic grounds - which would suggest that another site without that problem would be agreed?

I have no doubt that certain vocal groups will announce that this was 'confirmation that fracking was unsafe' or 'a public rejection of the safety risks of fracking' - but it seems that it was just down to traffic

I believe the other site decision has been deferred till Monday, with some not very welcome legal advice due to be released today...

edit, apologies - here it is: http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/planning/major-planning-applications/shale-gas-developments-in-lancashire/shale-gas-application-advice-note.aspx

Speaking as geologist fracking in itself is not a bad thing.

Fracking as an energy source when we should be switching to carbon free power is daft.

Thank god for that!!! I thought it was a forgone conclusion the other way.

There was a really good piece in the Guardian this week by John Ashton as to why

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/osborne-fracking-climate-change-democracy-twisted ]This is not just about climate change: the processes of our democracy are being twisted to impose an outcome[/url]
[i]
Public figures who live in southern England, including members of both houses of parliament, want fracking in the north but not in the south. In effect they are saying either that people in the north do not love where they live as much as southerners do, or their love counts less. The attempt by one group to impose such a repugnant standard of diminished humanity on another affronts our national sense of decency.

Like most of us they would be willing to make sacrifices for the national interest. But they can tell that what is presented to them actually conceals a shady mixture of political expediency and commercial opportunism. They can feel the institutions and processes of our democracy being twisted to impose an outcome in which they will pay the costs, and others who live far away will reap any benefits.[/i]

with a tory government in power, i suspect the anti fracking movement are pissing against the wind tbh. they are just delaying the inevitable, unfortunately.

But seosamh77, I trust this government to act fairly.

Conflicts of interest?

Lord Browne

The former BP boss is chairman of Cuadrilla, which is exploring for shale gas in Lancashire and West Sussex. He is lead “non-executive” across Government, meaning that he helps recruit other non-executives to Whitehall.

Baroness Hogg

The non-executive for the Treasury sits on the board of BG Group, which has significant shale gas assets in the United States.

Sam Laidlaw

The non-executive to the Transport Department is also chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, which recently bought a 25 per cent stake in Cuadrilla’s most promising shale gas prospect.

Ben Moxham

A former executive at BP when Lord Browne was at the helm, he followed the peer to Riverstone Holdings, which owns 42 per cent of Cuadrilla. Moxham was energy adviser at No 10 but quit in May.

Lord Howell

George Osborne’s father-in-law is also president of the British Institute of Economics, whose backers include BP and BG Group.

See also:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/now-cameron-aide-lynton-crosbys-links-to-fracking-industry-are-explored-8708331.html

Expect a rushed bill to steamroller it through.

Well, they can still appeal the decision, but I hope that it will stay rejected. We will see 😕

Was it not only rejected on traffic grounds

Correct, but it was the right decision; to open up those roads to a large volume of heavy trucks would be a nightmare for all the local residents.

which would suggest that another site without that problem would be agreed?

Also correct, which is why I think the other site will be approved as it's on a main road ( I think, don't know exactly where it is )

Unfortunately seosamh, I think you're absolutely right. Local democracy in the northern provinces isn't likely to count for much. As the quote I've put above says, they don't give a flying **** about us up here. If there is a price to be paid, it won't be by anyone they know, in a part of the world they're ever likely to find themselves in. Meanwhile their friends stand to make a lot of money, and they reap all the benefits

It's all about the Northern Power[s]house[/s]station innit 🙂

Thank god for that!!! I thought it was a forgone conclusion the other way.

Yep it is. Cameron will just force it through with legislation if necessary. He is obsessed with fracking (and austerity).

This part of Lancashire though, is very much a working landscape. It is actually very pretty, and is abundant with wildlife which I regularly see, however, it is also full of working farms, mainly dairy.

Like butter, milk, cheese and yogurt ?

I really don't want Lancashire to end up like Bradford County in Pennsylvania.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15919248

He is obsessed with [s]fracking[/s] making money.
I think the aim is to make fracking too costly by legal appeals and protests.

I really don't want Lancashire to end up like Bradford County in Pennsylvania

It's OK, Cameron and his chums live miles away, so they won't be in any way inconvenienced by it.

Speaking as geologist fracking in itself is not a bad thing.

There are all manner of issues with it. But as we've established already, nothing that Dave and chums need concern themselves with

Speaking as geologist fracking in itself is not a bad thing

Also speaking as a geologist and a Geo-environmental Engineer fracking is quite a bad thing.

Case studies from Ohio have seen an annual increase in <5 magnitude earthquake of several hundred fold since the advent of large scale fracking. In Ohio this hasn't been a major issue due to the sparse civilization in the vicinity of the wells. In the uk this is a different matter.

This is not to mention the environmental impact of the drilling process, the loss to ground water systems of both the drilling and fracking fluids, the surface storage and inevitable spillage of both. The inevitable fuel / hydraulic fluid spills during drilling / refueling and maintenance etc. Having worked in both exploration and and drilling for geotech engineering I can assure you that regardless of what measures and regs are in places diesel, oil and hydraulic fluid will be going in to the ground in some quantity.

Has the recent oily substance/contamination in North Lanarkshire homes water supply been traced yet? (an area of fracking).

Also, the site at Little Plumpton which I'm expecting to be approved on Monday, is pretty much next door to Warton, which is where a bloody massive BAE site is, making Eurofighters.

Hate to see them p*ss off the MOD if they got it wrong 😆

This is not to mention the environmental impact of the drilling process, the loss to ground water systems of both the drilling and fracking fluids, the surface storage and inevitable spillage of both. The inevitable fuel / hydraulic fluid spills during drilling / refueling and maintenance etc.

Does an environmental impact not also exist with all other energy sources, including the extraction of minerals and rare earth metals for production of wind/solar/tidal energy power production?

Does this environmental impact not also exist with all other energy sources, including the extraction of minerals and rare earth metals for production of wind/solar/tidal energy power production?

Then there are the unknowns, despite what any 'expert' geologist may say, in this respect they are more like meteorologists predicting the weather = scientist still cannot accurately model/predict the behaviour of complex systems and the earth's crust, as they are finding out in Ohio, is a very complex system.

Has the recent oily substance/contamination in North Lanarkshire homes water supply been traced yet? (an area of fracking).

Unless you can come up with some credible reason why fracking would contaminate the drinking water, you may as well point out that Jimmy Saville was also in the area.

the more investment there is in renewable energy the more efficient it will become and long term that is a good thing.

No the more demand there is for them, the dodgier the mining and processing in china will get as demand goes up and people care less and less where the stuff came from as long as they can get it. See also, oil and gas.

Then there are the unknowns, despite what any 'expert' geologist may say, in this respect they are more like meteorologists predicting the weather = scientist still cannot accurately model/predict the behaviour of complex systems and the earth's crust, as they are finding out in Ohio, is a very complex system.

Well pointed out, unfortunately all those lovely low carbon energy sources (except nuclear) tend to be rather dependant on the weather, and meteorologists are just guessing like all scientists and engineers aren't they.

Fracking as an energy source when we should be switching to carbon free power is daft.

It's a good job carbon free power is up to speed and can supply all the power we need then...

the more investment there is in renewable energy the more efficient it will become

Possibly, but the question is whether it causes more ecological damage than fracking [b]now[/b] not whether methods used to build windfarms in fifty years time might be potentially less damaging than fracking now.

It's when you add up all the negatives, environmental & local ecological damage, social damage, etc...,

Of course it is - but I haven't seen anybody doing that, wonder why?

fracking doesn't really have any positives

Well, about 28% of UK electricity being produced now is from coal, so if fracking and burning the gas causes less environmental damage than producing it from coal, it would be an immediate positive - and remembering that renewable energy sources still require backup generation, then fracked gas as a backup is still probably better than coal as a backup.

non?

(ps. Hora - are you absolutley sure they have been Fracking in North Lanarkshire, I thought there had only been exploratory drilling and no actual fracking, as the Scots govt. had placed a moratorium on all consents)

fracking doesn't really have any positives

Other than keeping the lights on when Putin throws his toys out the pram and keeping the UK chemicals industry supplied with reasonable priced ethane, yup, none.

Well, about 28% of UK electricity being produced now is from coal, so if fracking and vurning the gas causes less environmental damage than coal, it would be an immediate positive - and remembering that renewable energy sources still require backup generation, then fracked gas as a backup is still probably better than coal as a backup.

Burning gas (vs coal) releases less green house gases and pollutants, but you'll also cover vast swathes of the countryside with huge ponds full of toxic shit which no one knows what to do with.

but you'll also cover vast swathes of the countryside with huge ponds full of toxic shit which no one knows what to do with.

yes, because Coal mining and burning has no toxic legacy whatsoever, does it?

fracking is big energy and we have to buy it off big companies, that's a good model for the established players. Often donors to plotical parties.

Renewables are far more able to be decentralised - solar, ground and air source heat can all be done in our own homes and we then own them, dont have to buy anything off established players and can even sell our excess back into the grid and compete with them. Thats terrifying for the estblished players. Germany has a very high percentage of decentralised community owned power, our industry is being held back, e.g. huge renewable energy subsidy cuts at the last election.

Having said that one of the justifications for fracking is not for energy but as a feedstock for the chemical, plastics and pharmaceuticals industry. You can't make that stuff out of solar so we do need fossil fuels its just they are far to valuble to burn.

Also, the geological evidence seems very flaky that fracking is going to work in our country. The number of places that are estimated to have the right rocks is very small, the certainty about how much can be got out is very low. It sometimes feels like a huge investment bubble to me.

yes, because Coal mining and burning has no toxic legacy whatsoever, does it?

Burning anything is generally bad.

We could just import gas from places which can extract it at a much lower environmental cost rather than having to Frack for it in the UK.

Other than keeping the lights on when Putin throws his toys out the pram and keeping the UK chemicals industry supplied with reasonable priced ethane, yup, none.

Yeah, because the Russian economy is in such cracking shape that he could easily just spit his dummy and rely on the other, multiple strong, profitable sectors to finance his latest military escapades. Sectors like..... erm.... errrrrrrr........

We could just import gas from places which can extract it at a much lower environmental cost rather than having to Frack for it in the UK.

Yeah, Gazprom and the Russian govt are legendary for their concern not only of the environment, but also human rights - and I'm sure everyone knows the green credentials of the governments in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan!

We could just import gas from places which can extract it at a much lower environmental cost rather than having to Frack for it in the UK.

What makes you think Russian regulations are any better than ours?

fracking is big energy and we have to buy it off big companies, that's a good model for the established players. Often donors to plotical parties.

Renewables are far more able to be decentralised - solar, ground and air source heat can all be done in our own homes and we then own them, dont have to buy anything off established players and can even sell our excess back into the grid and compete with them. Thats terrifying for the estblished players. Germany has a very high percentage of decentralised community owned power, our industry is being held back, e.g. huge renewable energy subsidy cuts at the last election.

One of the most cost effective micro generation schemes I've seen was a tomato farm somewhere up in the Tees valley. The farmer was heating his greenhouses with gas powered IC engines and running the exhaust fumes through the greenhouses. The engines were attached to generators and fed into the national grid at a profit (being bale to flood the greenhouses with hot, humid, CO2 concentrated air was a freebie!).

It's perfectly feasible to heat your home with the waste heat from same sort of equipment and feed the power into the grid. It just doesn't make such good guardian reader middle class dinner party chat as a solar panel.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723 ]This is what Dave and chums really think[/url]

At the risk of being repatative, I'll just quote John Ashton ( Special Representative for Climate Change at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) from 2006 until June 2012) again:

[i]Public figures who live in southern England, including members of both houses of parliament, want fracking in the north but not in the south. In effect they are saying either that people in the north do not love where they live as much as southerners do, or their love counts less. The attempt by one group to impose such a repugnant standard of diminished humanity on another affronts our national sense of decency.

Like most of us they would be willing to make sacrifices for the national interest. But they can tell that what is presented to them actually conceals a shady mixture of political expediency and commercial opportunism. They can feel the institutions and processes of our democracy being twisted to impose an outcome in which they will pay the costs, and others who live far away will reap any benefits.
[/i]

And just add, as a Lancashire resident, that they can **** right off!!!

As was actually said:

[i]"there are large, uninhabited and desolate areas, certainly in parts of the north-east, where there is plenty of room for fracking, well away from anybody’s residence, and where it could be conducted without any threat to the rural environment"[/i]

Is that really untrue?

I used to work in the middle of a 50,000 hectare forest - surrounded by a good hundred thousand hectares of moorland - I reckon it was pretty 'king desolate, and much in need of jobs since the Forestry Commission etc. have reduced their workforce.

perhaps what you did was fall for the reduction ad absurdum of certain politically motivated lobby groups who tried to represent '[i]there are large, uninhabited and desolate areas, certainly in parts of the north-east[/i] as [i]'The North East is uninhabited and desolate'[/i] - Wonder why they did that?

We could just import gas from places which can extract it at a much lower environmental cost rather than having to Frack for it in the UK.

It’s all about energy independence...

The Fracturing revolution in the USA has reduced their import of Nigerian oil from 1.3m bbl per day (one Exxon Valdez) to zero in October last year… With North Sea reserves being more expensive and risky to extract it would be negligent for any government not to investigate alternate sources (Wind, Solar, Nuclear, unconventional oil) in order to maintain energy security for the country. We all want more electronics, more free wifi, more telephone repeater towers so who can blame people for trying to provide us with the energy for all this...

THere are steps that could be taken to reduce some of the effects.

If microsiesmic wells are in place and online before drilling is allowed on the production wells then drilling/completion can be halted. This is commonly done in Southern Italy (plus others) in the earthquake prone areas.

A novel concept could be that a provider has to place an upfront bond much like a renters deposit to cover any evironmental impact should there be a bad event rathe than scraping money together afterwards. If you have to put cash in a holding account rather than a paper plan in place that changes the attention required to HSE..

I am a fan of nuclear power stations for electricity generation while better "green" solutions are developed. Burning oil, gas, rubbish doesn't make sense to me...

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

ninfan - its a red herring

The problem is that those 'desolate' areas don't have the infastructure already in place to support large scale industry like this. And the companies don't want the expense of building them. So the areas they're proposing drilling are the areas with infrastructure alerady there. Which, unsurprisingly enough, is where lots of people live.

To quote John Ashton again....

[i]There are already 39 local anti-fracking groups in Lancashire. There is no town or village in the county where fracking is in prospect without a large majority determined to keep it out. Many are experienced professionals who understand the technologies and processes involved. And while Lancashire is in the front line, the response is the same wherever people find out that the drills, compressors and heavy trucks might soon be heading for them.

Those who want fracking often accuse these campaigners of nimbyism. But they are wrong. This is the authentic, common-sense voice of ordinary citizens who can sense a dodgy proposition when it’s put before them.[/i]

Unless you can come up with some credible reason why fracking would contaminate the drinking water, you may as well point out that Jimmy Saville was also in the area.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/how-the-epa-linked-fracking-to-contaminated-well-water/3/

My inclination, having worked for many years in the water industry is that anything which is liable to pollute groundwater needs very careful consideration (that's putting it as mildly as I can).

I'm all for finding better, cheaper, cleaner ways of finding new sources of energy, and I can easily see how this could consider as me being a NIMBY, but would you really want Fracking in your back yard ?

Nuclear is great.....until you consider that we still haven't decided what we're going to do with all the waste in Sellafield. Bury it under a mountain ?

By the way, Springfields Nuclear Fuel Processing Plant, which produces rods for Nuclear Power Stations, is in Salwick, about 3 miles down the road from the proposed fracking site as well. Wonder how it will hold up to minor earthquakes ?

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

A quick look at their funders and connections should soon make it all pretty clear

From what I've seen down here in the South Downs is a test site drill for exploring fracking. Looks ok to me, only a few trucks around at any one time and takes up less than 1/2 a field.

Are you expecting a huge site or something up there ^^

The problem is that those 'desolate' areas don't have the infastructure already in place to support large scale industry like this. And the companies don't want the expense of building them. So the areas they're proposing drilling are the areas with infrastructure alerady there. Which, unsurprisingly enough, is where lots of people live.

What sort of infrastructure do you think is in place to transport a couple of hundred wagons of timber every week out of one of these desolate and isolated places?

Don't ask me. Ask Cuadrilla. They're the ones who are proposing drilling in heavily populated areas instead of the more 'desolate'

Why could that possibly be? Could it perhaps be that they want to make absolutely shitloads of cash, and couldn't give a flying **** about the effect it has on peoples lives in the process

It's a good job carbon free power is up to speed and can supply all the power we need then...

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

What fracking subsidies? Link?

Nuclear? Well new nuclear has the advantage that it still produces power after sunset when the wind isn't blowing.

From what I've seen down here in the South Downs is a test site drill for exploring fracking. Looks ok to me, only a few trucks around at any one time and takes up less than 1/2 a field.

Are you expecting a huge site or something up there ^^

I think a lot of it has to do with how close the sites are to areas of population. They're not exactly out in the middle of no-where.

I'm sure that the MPs in Westminster know that Lancashire is full of people, and is not just a wasteland. Surely ? 🙄

Nuclear? Well new nuclear has the advantage that it still produces power after sunset when the wind isn't blowing.

Once again, Sellafield, your answers to that please.

Nuclear is great.....until you consider that we still haven't decided what we're going to do with all the waste in Sellafield. Bury it under a mountain ?

I believe that is the plan... Dig a big hole drop it in and walk away.
You could fuse the material in glass or other materials to reduce its ability to leach away.

I am sitting at my desk at work right now with 4 monitors. The amount of energy they use is seemingly not a consideration for the company I work for. Back home I have laptops, tablets, phones, NAS drives, Sonos all burning up energy when I am there. I had nothing like this 5 years ago. If you are trying to plan demand for a 50 year power station lifetime you are going to have a hard job.
If you are in Government you are planning a policy for 3-5 years and then joe public gets to pay for the piss poor planning...

Cuadrilla may want to be near urban centers as my experience of frac sites indicates that without a solid supply of cheap booze and eastern european prostitues the crew will forgo sleep in order to travel to find these things...

Once again, Sellafield, your answers to that please.

What is the question?

The tax breaks specifically for fracking announced by Chancellor George Osborne, with tax on income cut from 62% to 30%, amount to yet another subsidy for fossil fuels

Nuclear? Well new nuclear has the advantage that it still produces power after sunset when the wind isn't blowing.

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

A quick look at their funders and connections should soon make it all pretty clear

Quite - that's the reality of politicians though isn't it. Cameron is quite happily 'cutting all the green crap' whilst lining his and his friends pockets.

From what I've seen down here in the South Downs is a test site drill for exploring fracking. Looks ok to me, only a few trucks around at any one time and takes up less than 1/2 a field.
Are you expecting a huge site or something up there ^^

There is a massive difference between 'test drilling' where you are drilling to evaluate the geology of an area and potential gas volumes and the actual extraction drilling.

Fracking requires multiple drill sites / wells to to exploit the gas containing strata. The example below I believe is in America but its the same principle.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Luckily, tidal energy runs 24/7

Well the tides may be 24hr but any individual tidal power plant isn't. Cardiff Bay would have a daily pattern of producing power for 3 1/2hrs then 2 1/2 hrs with no power.

So again at night, with no wind, there is still no power for 2 1/2 hours a time. And building several tidal plants doesn't solve it either.

http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/

he tax breaks specifically for fracking announced by Chancellor George Osborne, with tax on income cut from 62% to 30%, amount to yet another subsidy for fossil fuels

I don't think you understand what a subsidy is. Paying less tax than before is not a subsidy. The govt is still taxing them.

Paying wind farms more than the market rate for power and paying them not to produce power when it isn't needed is a subsidy.

Interesting stuff, traffic and waste water treatment/disposal was always going to be a much bigger issue here than in the US as we have much tighter restrictions. The water volume required and associated lorry traffic is immense, in the US they can just pour the contaminated water onto roads and wherever they like pretty much but here they will have to transport it off site and treat it, or build on site treatment.

Well pointed out, unfortunately all those lovely low carbon energy sources (except nuclear) tend to be rather dependant on the weather,

Explain how the weather affects the tides, which run very regularly, completely predictably, at different times around the UK, and will continue to do so for many millions more years.

Isn't there an issue regarding water quality in aquifers?

My understanding is that here in the UK it is less so, as the fracking operations will be considerably below the water table, unlike in the US. Could be wrong though.

Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

Because hydrocarbons and nuclear make existing companies and people very rich, and these people give their money to fund political parties that allow them to continue to be rich or become richer, by protecting their business and industry and preventing new competition from damaging their profits and subsequent donations. The power of the O&G industry is immense (eg Ineos have the scottish government by the balls), and big nuclear projects allow politicians to play big money games with foreign countries and businesses like China and France, who must love our government's approach to energy. O&G and nuclear are established technologies and a safe investment, renewable technologies less proven and not of such interest to investors.

If you can find a way for renewables in the UK to make companies and people very rich, then the future is brighter for renewables. I bet if the UK had stuck at developing wind power in the 60s and 70s whilst they were ahead, instead of abandoning it and allowing the german and dutch companies to become highly successful and profitable at it, the UK government would have a very different attitude to renewable energy.

And building several tidal plants doesn't solve it either.

It does if they are in different places around the UK 😉

irc - The question is very simple. What are we going to do with all of the hundreds of tonnes of Nuclear waste in Sellafield, apart from encase it in glass, and then bury in under a mountain in the Lake District ?

Your answer please.

It does if they are in different places around the UK

Yeah, but the overcapacity that you have to build in to the system to cover the slack makes it uneconomic - to guarantee a base load of 20GW you could be building a hundred plus GW of generation capacity, so five times the cost per GW.

What are we going to do with all of the hundreds of tonnes of Nuclear waste in Sellafield, apart from encase it in glass, and then bury in under a mountain in the Lake District

Which is a problem how exactly?

Because Sellafield is decrepit, leaking, rusty old bucket full of holes, with toxic and nuclear waste leaking out, which no-one wants to deal with, and pretend it's not there, mainly because it's "far away".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictures-sellafields-crumbling-tanks-radioactive-4539565

Until we can actually prove that as a nation we can look after out radioactive waste properly, then I'm really not sure that we should go ahead with Fracking, which produces massive amounts of toxic byproducts. Do you ?

Thats a problem with how we're storing it at the moment though, your argument against anybody 'dealing with it' appears to be that 'nobody is dealing with it' - thats not an argument against encasing it in glass and burying it.

so, come on, whats wrong with that?

Edit:

I'm really not sure that we should go ahead with Fracking, which produces massive amounts of toxic byproducts.

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

Depends how you spin it.

The giveaways to the Oil and gas industry recently have been in the forms of tax cuts. Reducing a tax rate from 80% to 75% isn't really a subsidy is it. Whereas offering to pay several time the market price for wind energy to try and make it competitive against fossil fuels is a subsidy. And it's not been 'cut', it's been cut for onshore wind as it was generally a bit pants and was never going to be competitive against offshore.

Well there was the study by the EPA in the States which appears to suggest fracking rather than Jimmy Saville was leading to contamination of groundwater.

trailofdestruction - Member

Until we can actually prove that as a nation we can look after out radioactive waste properly, then I'm really not sure that we should go ahead with Fracking, which produces massive amounts of toxic byproducts. Do you ?

What's wrong with burying it under a mountain?

And treating the waste water from fracking isn't actually that bad, like most water water it's eaten up by bacteria. You just do it very very slowly so as not to kill the bacteria in the treatment plant. Hence you tend to need a big pond/tank to store it in for the short term.

Crude oil comes out the ground with a heck of a lot of salty water. which is removed at the refinery. Where do you think that goes?

And what ninfan said +1

slowoldman-instead of reading someone else's view of the EPA report why not read it yourself. Here's the draft.

http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/hydraulic-fracturing-study-draft-assessment-2015

What it does tell you is that they think it generally safe with minimum pollution but there is some.

What they have not looked at because its not their job, is it profitable? Almost all US drillers of fracked oil have not made a profit. The money has come from Wall Street investments, they will never get a return but those investments all paid a commission the the Wall St investment sales people.

The amount of money invested in world wide oil & gas exploration now stands at $500 trillion plus. The Bank of England has started an investigation into this as they believe it will be the next financial bubble, almost all the G7 national banks and governments have now asked to join or look at the findings. A good amount of any of our pensions are part of that money.

Sleep tight.

Well this is what we have got coming;

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/dynamic-response-can-create-virtual-power-plants/1059592#.VY1hdUbLGf4

It's been talked about for a while and trialled on some large estates with some success and it will be applied to domestics in the future.
In plain speak, they are going to turn your shit on and off according to the load on the power stations. Aside from the guff about efficiency, it's mainly because it's expensive to turn power stations up and down. It's supposedly neutral in that they switch as much off as they switch on, and the on intervals are a few seconds so not hugely inconvenient. That's as I understand it anyway.

Yeah, but the overcapacity that you have to build in to the system to cover the slack makes it uneconomic - to guarantee a base load of 20GW you could be building a hundred plus GW of generation capacity, so five times the cost per GW.

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of only generating power from one source, it isn't how things really work. Also have a read about the supergrid - this is the way things are likely to go and something the national grid and other companies are spending a lot on at the moment.

jeez this is one of those cyclical thread topics on here isn't it, a bit of groundhog day!

With both fracking and wind farms Im not sure why they don't just offer to give away free energy to local households. If you gave people free electricity and gas within the local area I bet most opposition would vanish overnight. You might even find you get areas that want you to build a wind farm!!

Which is kind of my point ninfan ( although I maybe explained it poorly ). If we are already producing large amounts of toxic waste, and not dealing with it correctly, ( and no, I don't really thinks that burying nuclear waste under a mountain is a sensible way of dealing with the problem ) then why should we invest in a fuel production system that will produce even more toxic waste ?

Surely we should be going in the opposite direction and trying to produce less waste, regardless ?

and no, I don't really thinks that burying nuclear waste under a mountain is a sensible way of dealing with the problem

Again

Why?

produce less waste regardless

As stated, I'm yet to see a lifetime breakdown that supports the theory that fracking is more polluting than the net damage done in the production of renewable energy sources (including extraction of minerals and rare earth metals etc.)

^ ^ Good Pics.

That gives the scale to something, all I've sen so far is a few portacabins, couple of trucks, what looks like a very small Electric Pylon framework and some bald land.

So you'll understand that I've only one view.

As to all the other arguments about %age this/that well I'll let you carry on with that because TBH I'm not that bothered.

I don't disagree that we all want more energy, and that the raw materials for it have to come from somewhere, and usually at a price, but, I think that in the 21st Century, we need to move closer to the realisation that simply sweeping the toxic waste by-products of that under the carpet for the next generation to deal with, is a pretty rubbish way of looking at the current problem. Wouldn't you agree ?

What's right about it ? Surely we must be able to come up with a better, safer and cleaner solution than simply burying it under a mountain.

Why is that such a good solution, when as we've seen, the people currently handling the storage and processing at Sellafield are not making a very good job of it ?

What's right about it ? Surely we must be able to come up with a better, safer and cleaner solution than simply burying it under a mountain.

Again

Why?

What's wrong with it?

Can you rationalise in any way, or underline a reasonable scientific basis for this not being a way of dealing with something we already have (huge legacy issues from years of nuclear development) and can't just magic away?

Otherwise it's a bit like the Brawndo conversation from idiocracy:

"it's got radioactivity"
So?
"Well, radioactivity is what bombs have"

As for

]the people currently handling the storage and processing at Sellafield are not making a very good job of it ?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the people currently handling the storage and processing are doing a bloody amazing job of clearing up mistakes made forty years ago?

You might even find you get areas that want you to build a wind farm!!

Not all wind farms receive loads of objections, and they do pass income and benefits back to the local communities (or bribery as my old man calls it!). Some are established by local communities themselves too.

Now let me think.... What would I rather have built near my house? Some wind turbines? Or a load of fracking rigs? Hmmmmmmm.......

Now let me think.... What would I rather have built near my house? Some wind turbines? Or a load of fracking rigs? Hmmmmmmm.......

You've done nowt but complain since we took away the coal mine!

😆

😆

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/indonesian-mud-volcano-probably-human-triggered/

What could possibly go wrong?

Now let me think.... What would I rather have built near my house? Some wind turbines? Or a load of fracking rigs? Hmmmmmmm.......

[img] ?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1436353488444[/img]

this is good material, wonder if Davo had a quiet word in DECC's ear.

http://www.davidsmythe.org/frackland/

By the sounds of the Tory environment minister presently on Radio 4, it looks like they're setting the wheels in motion to overrule lancashire County Councils decision to reject the fracking applications, quoting procedural anomalies regarding timescales.

Well I never saw that one coming.

Hurray for their much trumpeted 'Localim' and democracy eh?

We'll empower local authorities! Until they reach what we regard as the wrong decision, then we'll simply ignore them, and it's back to dictat from Westminster 🙄